🔗 Share this article

Over many years, victims of Jeffrey Epstein have sought justice. At one point, it appeared like they would get it.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier’s one-time partner, was convicted of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her involvement in the late financier’s exploitation of underage females – and given to 20 years imprisonment.

At the same time, financial firms that had worked with Epstein, while not admitting wrongdoing, paid substantial sums in settlements to victims. Donald Trump even made releasing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and doubled down on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not release these files, and his administration has become involved in reports about personal connections between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to release files have stalled, due to political jockeying and justice department foot-dragging.

But two new lawsuits could provide clarity on Epstein’s operations amid the stalemate – irrespective of their result.

Lawsuits Target Leading Financial Institutions

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), allege that these financial powerhouses unlawfully facilitated Epstein’s trafficking ring. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have consistently advocated for survivors of Epstein’s abuse.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and power, but through financial backing and financial support from both private parties and organizations, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s sex trafficking operation but opted for financial gain over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, declaring the institution “knowingly provided the monetary resources and the veneer of institutional legitimacy for Epstein and his accomplices to support their international sex trafficking organization under the pretext of legal commercial dealings”. The legal action also said the bank neglected to file suspicious activity reports.

Legal Experts Weigh In on Legal Hurdles

Experienced lawyers who commented on the matter said establishing liability would be challenging. But they also identified potential results which could provide solace to plaintiffs or release of long-sought information.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who founded a legal firm, said evidence has to show that an bank’s conduct led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and clearly I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be too tangential from a juridical perspective.

“The case hinges on proof,” he said. A lawyer would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have occurred”. In this instance, that would boil down to “but for the bank’s conduct, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been exploited”, the lawyer clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go further than a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a significant element: that is the legal test. So whatever misconduct there was, if there was any wrongdoing … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a key contributor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a substantial factor? It’s uncertain.”

Liability aside, such lawsuits could serve as a warning that relationships with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It’s a PR nightmare,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases thrown out and fail, Rahmani expects a quick resolution. “No party desires to pursue any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and principal of the legal practice his firm and ex-government lawyer, said corporations can be liable. In this scenario, “whether the banks have liability is going to hinge, in part, on what the banks knew, if they were informed of alleged abuse or illegal acts”, and somehow offered support to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the financial entities into some kind of sex-trafficking scheme. The banks would likely not be aware of the details of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was public, “there’s no law against for a bank to have a customer who’s an disreputable individual”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a customer, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the banks.”

Potential Benefits for Victims

That said, key elements of the legal proceedings could help those affected by Epstein.

“These cases may uncover additional details about the ongoing Epstein saga,” Faddis said. “Despite the fact that there have been obstacles erected at every turn for folks pursuing this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a evidence-gathering phase, and that discovery process often requires release of materials that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a comment that the lawsuits could have a preventive impact and accomplish what lawmakers have failed to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the survivors of the financier – as well as for potential targets who will suffer from similar trafficking organizations – if our financial institutions are not held accountable for the crucial part each plays, either in supplying the required framework for the criminal enterprise or recognizing the financial component of these offenses and putting an end to it.

Edwards continued: “Our prospects are significantly higher of making a real difference than lawmakers, because we understand the facts and history of the case and are not motivated by partisan interests but rather by a genuine desire to make a real difference and to protect the survivors, who have already suffered tremendously.

“We approach these matters without any partisan motives and thus will not be swayed by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without being caught, we are taking a further significant action forward toward legal resolution for survivors.”

Bank Responses

Asked for comment on the lawsuit, BNY said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will strongly contest against it.”

Bank of America’s statement likewise stated: “We intend to firmly protect our interests in this case.”